UN TO RATIONALIZE ITS WOMEN'S AFFAIRS MECHANISMS

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000822

DEPT FOR IO; IO/EDA, IO/RHS; S/WE; G/IWI; PRM/POP; PLEASE PASS
USAID; ROME FOR IFAD

SIPDIS
SENSITIVE

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PHUM SOCI EAID KWMN UN
SUBJECT: UN TO RATIONALIZE ITS WOMEN'S AFFAIRS MECHANISMS

REF: A. PHIPPS-LUM E-MAIL JULY


1. (SBU) Summary. The high-level panel on UN System-Wide Coherence
underlined, in its 2004 report, the need for reform in the gender
sector, and the Member States have agreed that the UN's approach to
gender/women needs to be rationalized and strengthened. Deputy
Secretary-General Migiro presented a paper with four options (ref A)
in July, which is now under discussion. USUN believes Option D, a
"composite" entity, comes closest to a viable way forward, although
more fleshing out, and possibly modification, of the details of this
option are needed. Discussions will continue during the 63rd
General Assembly, with an eye towards making a decision by September

2009. This cable describes the four options and requests the
Department's guidance on the preferred outcome described in para 9.
End summary.


2. (U) Currently, the UN has four separate offices to deal with
aspects of women's or gender issues. There is poor coordination
between them, no common line of authority, and no institutional
links within the UN's organizational structure. The four UN
entities are: the UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM),the
Division for the Advancement of Women of the Department of Economic
and Social Affairs (DAW),the Office of the Special Adviser on
Gender Issues and Advancement of Women, within the Department of
Economic and Social Affairs (OSAGI),and the International Training
and Research Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW),
located in Santo Domingo. UNIFEM is governed by the UNDP Executive
Board, DAW and OSAGI report ultimately to the Secretary-General, and
INSTRAW has its own Executive Board and donor base. No common
authority oversees them.


3. (SBU) The four entities, along with others such as UNICEF and
UNFPA, participate to varying degrees in several Task Forces and
Working Groups that have been created to try to bring coherence to
policies and programs emerging from this duplicative structure.
Nevertheless, the system is marked by competition and lack of
collaboration. None of the entities are an effective voice to hold
other, larger, agencies and offices accountable for mainstreaming
gender concerns and taking note of women's unique needs in their
sectoral programs. Civil society as well as member states have
actively criticized the inefficiency of the current "gender
architecture."


4. (SBU) The four options presented by D/SYG Migiro are: A) Status
Quo, B) autonomous fund or programme, C) new Department of the
Secretariat, and D) "composite" entity with a new governing body.
Except for Option A, all would be headed by an
Under-Secretary-General. The co-chairs of the System-Wide Coherence
process (the PermReps of Tanzania and Ireland) convened a meeting
September 8 to discuss the options. Below we note some pros and
cons of each option, which are spelled out in more detail in the
D/SYG's July 23 paper (found on the website of the President of the
UN General Assembly at http://www.un.org/ga/president/62
/letters/usgswc280708.pdf)

OPTION A - Status Quo


5. (SBU) Key Features: Retain the existing structures of OSAGI,
DAW, UNIFEM and INSTRAW. Enhance funding, coordination, joint
action and cost-sharing, per WFP, IFAD and FAO as a model.
Voluntary funding for UNIFEM and INSTRAW; regular budget for OSAGI
and DAW. Member state oversight through donor influence and UNGA
3rd and 5th committee resolutions.

--PROS: Least costly. No new high level position created. Least
time-consuming to achieve. Smallest chance of creating a flawed but
powerful structure.
--CONS: Unlikely to strengthen gender programming or women's place
in society/economy. Continue to lack a strong voice for women at HQ
or in the field. Not sure if WFP/IFAD/FAO coordination model has
been successful.

--COMMENT: USMission in Rome, USAID or IO/T may have some
information on coordination model mentioned above. NGO community
will be unsatisfied with this result. There may be space, however,
to strengthen and consolidate some of the existing mechanisms
without moving quite so far as the other options do.

--------------
OPTION 2 - Autonomous Fund/Programme
--------------


6. (SBU) Key Features: Create a new Fund/Programme on the level of
UNDP, UNHCR, UNFPA, UNICEF, WFP, etc. Create a new Executive Board.
Headed by a Head of Agency at U/SYG level. All voluntary funding.
Basically, enhancing UNIFEM while abolishing OSAGI and DAW.

--PROS: Strong presence in the field. Capable of operational

activities. Can have impact on women's lives. No regular budget
cost. Builds upon the part of the gender structure the USG likes
most (UNIFEM).
--CONS: Costly; unclear if sufficient donor funding would exist to
give new entity a worldwide presence in the field. No support for
Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) meetings. Influence on
other Funds/Programs (UNDP, UNICEF, etc) is unclear; others might
drop operational programming to help women in face of new entity's
responsibility for women. Coordination with UNFPA and its women's
programs is undefined.

--COMMENT: An existing part of the Secretariat (DESA) would need to
be assigned to "service" CSW. Several developing countries have
already expressed their interest in this option.

--------------
OPTION 3 - New Department of Secretariat
--------------


7. (SBU) Key Features: Create a new Department, on the level of
DPA, DPKO, OCHA. Headed by a U/SYG who reports to the SYG. Regular
budget funding. Basically, enhances and combines DAW and OSAGI,
while abolishing UNIFEM.

--PROS: none.
--CONS: Costliest option. Expands Secretariat, contrary to UN
reform goals. Weak in the field; no capability to run operational
programs.

--COMMENT: This is the least attractive of the options to the US
and others. Not a single Member State expressed any interest in
pursuing this option. This is partially a reflection of the
unimpressive work done by OSAGI and DAW, as well as a desire that
emphasis be on results in the field, rather than on enlarging the
Secretariat at headquarters.

--------------
OPTION 4 - Composite Entity
--------------


8. (SBU) Key Features: Create a new Intergovernmental governing
body, reporting either to GA or ECOSOC. Headed by a U/SYG. Combine
operational and policy/normative responsibilities in one entity.
Funding partially from regular budget, partially from voluntary
contributions. Some presence in the field. Similar to Status Quo,
but with new layer of oversight and formal coordination.

--PROS: Avoids sole reliance on regular budget. Field-based focus.
Policy function does not disappear. Strong voice for women within
the system. Common authority would preside over both field
operations and policy. Head of entity would be part of Chief
Executives Board (CEB) on an equal par with heads of UNDP, UNICEF,
etc.
--CONS: Creation of new Intergovernmental governing body could be
difficult, controversial and result in diminished USG influence.
Functioning of new Intergovernmental body will be costly. Field
presence could be weak, if voluntary contributions are insufficient.


--COMMENT: There is no precedent for such a structure and details
are still unclear. In establishing a new governing body, we would
need to take steps to avoid reliving the process of creating the
Human Rights Council (HRC) and the Peacebuilding Council (PBC).
There are some indications that the new governing body might simply
build upon the existing Commission on the Status of Women (CSW),
which could be an acceptable approach. The "composite" option
coincides with USG position of wanting to avoid putting the budget
of the new entity on the regular budget. Several countries,
including Europeans and some developing countries, have indicated
they are leaning towards support for Option D.

--------------
COMMENT
--------------


9. (SBU) None of the options are optimal. A middle way might be
thought of as a "Status Quo Plus" that would retain the parts of the
existing structure that work, merge redundant parts of the
structure, and retain the goal of having all parts of the UN system
make gender one of their concerns in their work (i.e., "mainstream"
gender). This could possibly be done by 1) merging OSAGI and DAW
and assigning a strong, energetic, authoritative head for the new
gender/women's office within the Secretariat (thus eliminating
duplication),2) retaining UNIFEM, which does excellent, but
limited, work in the field, while seeking to enlarge its voluntary
funding and field operations; 3) avoiding creation of a new
intergovernmental or governing body. INSTRAW could either be
retained, or turned into a branch of UNIFEM, to continue to function

as a think tank and research unit (thus avoiding resistance from the
Latin Americans, who strongly support this small office based in the
Dominican Republic). If the USG adamantly opposed the creation of a
new U/SYG post, we could explore whether giving ultimate authority
for gender to the Deputy Secretary-General would provide sufficient
accountability and authority within the UN system and whether the
D/SYG would have time to firmly lead the existing coordination
structures.

Khalilzad